duncanjwitham

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

Like I said, there’s a decent chance that the majority of the claims get booted out on day 1. Pretty much the only thing the rules are clear on is that only the EFL can bring disciplinary claims, so that kills any arguments from ‘Boro over the stadium sale. They simply cannot bring disciplinary claims themselves, and we’ve already been cleared over that issue.  Likewise any other brand new claims they might bring.  It arguably defeats the Wycombe claim too, as their claim seems to be related to the timing and enforcement of an existing EFL disciplinary issue. Which again, they can’t argue because they don’t have jurisdiction.  If the panel agree that they can’t bring those claims, it cuts out all of the complicated arguments and we get a quick decision.
The only aspect where it might get interesting is ‘Boro arguing over compensation for the amortisation issue. Like it or not, we’ve been found guilty on that, so there’s possibly no quick get out there.  But even then, precedent seems to imply that you simply can’t link overspending to actual on-field results, so there’s possibly a quick decision there too.
I think it’s quite likely that if it goes in our favour, it will be a very quick decision. And if it doesn’t, it’s probably irrelevant anyway as any kind of substantial award means we just get liquidated.

I’m pretty sure you can’t just stick your hand up at the end and say “us too”. Even if there’s a lot of overlap, we’d still need lawyers drafting our claims, arguing the specifics of how QPR etc have wronged us etc, plus the risks of costs if decisions go against us.  Even just admins time putting the claims together.
Plus, if you’re wanting a single combined case involving QPR etc as well, then it’s going to delay things massively. There’s no way QPR’s legal team will agree to an expedited hearing next week, they’ll want months to prepare.

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

I pretty much give up. Last chance...
It's nothing to do with EFL disciplinary processes.  The EFL rules state that clubs *cannot* bring legal proceedings against each other (civil or otherwise), they *have* to go through arbitration.  The way that arbitration process works is documented in the EFL rules.  There is no suggestion *anywhere* that 'Boro and Wycombe have bought civil claims against the club. Thy are simply not allowed to under EFL rules.  They have filed claims through the official EFL arbitration process.  This is repeatedly documented in the written reasons from the hearings against Derby, and the 'Boro attempt to appeal our case.

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

I was too lazy to check and it turns out that passage wasn't quite how I remembered it ? 

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

I assume you’re referring to this bit:
”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”
Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

Arbitration will be to decide if they'd be football creditors or not.
6th place. I have no doubt Derby wouldn't have placed 6th if we didn't exceed the limits under straight-line amortisation. It's debatable whether that would be Boro, Bristol or any other side - only 1 result over the entire season had to differ for Bristol to finish 6th.
Points deductions. Boro's claim in 2019 was because they felt we should have had a points deduction in 18/19. Having exceeded the limits in the 14/15-16/17 period, the points deduction would have ordinarily be applied to the 17/18 season. We also exceeded the limits in the 16/17-18/19 period which would have resulted in a deduction in 19/10, and the 17/18-20/21 period giving a deduction in the current season.
Year of overspend. The 18/19 season fell within 2 failed periods. But, why does one season matter when it falls inside a 3 or 4 year period? Would they still feel entitled to claim if the first 2 seasons saw £26m losses but a £2m profit in the third? The third being the season they missed out onnthe playoffs.
Right to claim. Do clubs have a right to claim against clubs who have been found guilty of P&S breaches? If the punishment under EFL regs aren't sufficient, then perhaps they need amending instead?

Thats the entire argument, really.  You simply can’t correlate spending to results, some teams will spend more and do better, some will spend more and do worse.  So the EFLs argument (by precedent in previous judgments at least) is that punishments are awarded for overspending, but they are intended to be punitive to the team that committed the breach, they aren’t supposed to be corrective (I.e to readjust the league to compensate for other teams).  So there is simply no way for ‘Boro to prove that our overspending cost them in league position.

Thats the entire argument, really.  You simply can’t correlate spending to results, some teams will spend more and do better, some will spend more and do worse.  So the EFLs argument (by precedent in previous judgments at least) is that punishments are awarded for overspending, but they are intended to be punitive to the team that committed the breach, they aren’t supposed to be corrective (I.e to readjust the league to compensate for other teams).  So there is simply no way for ‘Boro to prove that our overspending cost them in league position.

Thats the entire argument, really.  You simply can’t correlate spending to results, some teams will spend more and do better, some will spend more and do worse.  So the EFLs argument (by precedent in previous judgments at least) is that punishments are awarded for overspending, but they are intended to be punitive to the team that committed the breach, they aren’t supposed to be corrective (I.e to readjust the league to compensate for other teams).  So there is simply no way for ‘Boro to prove that our overspending cost them in league position.

Thats the entire argument, really.  You simply can’t correlate spending to results, some teams will spend more and do better, some will spend more and do worse.  So the EFLs argument (by precedent in previous judgments at least) is that punishments are awarded for overspending, but they are intended to be punitive to the team that committed the breach, they aren’t supposed to be corrective (I.e to readjust the league to compensate for other teams).  So there is simply no way for ‘Boro to prove that our overspending cost them in league position.

Like I said, there’s a decent chance that the majority of the claims get booted out on day 1. Pretty much the only thing the rules are clear on is that only the EFL can bring disciplinary claims, so that kills any arguments from ‘Boro over the stadium sale. They simply cannot bring disciplinary claims themselves, and we’ve already been cleared over that issue.  Likewise any other brand new claims they might bring.  It arguably defeats the Wycombe claim too, as their claim seems to be related to the timing and enforcement of an existing EFL disciplinary issue. Which again, they can’t argue because they don’t have jurisdiction.  If the panel agree that they can’t bring those claims, it cuts out all of the complicated arguments and we get a quick decision.
The only aspect where it might get interesting is ‘Boro arguing over compensation for the amortisation issue. Like it or not, we’ve been found guilty on that, so there’s possibly no quick get out there.  But even then, precedent seems to imply that you simply can’t link overspending to actual on-field results, so there’s possibly a quick decision there too.
I think it’s quite likely that if it goes in our favour, it will be a very quick decision. And if it doesn’t, it’s probably irrelevant anyway as any kind of substantial award means we just get liquidated.

I’m pretty sure you can’t just stick your hand up at the end and say “us too”. Even if there’s a lot of overlap, we’d still need lawyers drafting our claims, arguing the specifics of how QPR etc have wronged us etc, plus the risks of costs if decisions go against us.  Even just admins time putting the claims together.
Plus, if you’re wanting a single combined case involving QPR etc as well, then it’s going to delay things massively. There’s no way QPR’s legal team will agree to an expedited hearing next week, they’ll want months to prepare.

I pretty much give up. Last chance...
It's nothing to do with EFL disciplinary processes.  The EFL rules state that clubs *cannot* bring legal proceedings against each other (civil or otherwise), they *have* to go through arbitration.  The way that arbitration process works is documented in the EFL rules.  There is no suggestion *anywhere* that 'Boro and Wycombe have bought civil claims against the club. Thy are simply not allowed to under EFL rules.  They have filed claims through the official EFL arbitration process.  This is repeatedly documented in the written reasons from the hearings against Derby, and the 'Boro attempt to appeal our case.

It's certainly not being helped by people using different terms interchangeably - I mean, when a journalist says one of EFL arbitration/independent arbitration/official arbitration/legal case/legal action/court case/civil case etc, I genuinely think they could be meaning any one of a dozen unrelated things.  You cannot trust that the words they say actually mean what they intended them to mean.
My basis for interpreting it is following the EFL rules, which are the system we're currently operating under, and which say everything has to be done through their own arbitration process.  Obviously I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

I pretty much give up. Last chance...
It's nothing to do with EFL disciplinary processes.  The EFL rules state that clubs *cannot* bring legal proceedings against each other (civil or otherwise), they *have* to go through arbitration.  The way that arbitration process works is documented in the EFL rules.  There is no suggestion *anywhere* that 'Boro and Wycombe have bought civil claims against the club. Thy are simply not allowed to under EFL rules.  They have filed claims through the official EFL arbitration process.  This is repeatedly documented in the written reasons from the hearings against Derby, and the 'Boro attempt to appeal our case.

Mate I think it’s is an EFL process.
98           Appointing the Arbitrators
98.1        Subject to Regulation 98.6, the League Arbitration Panel shall comprise 3 members.
98.2        Within 14 days of service of the Notice of Arbitration, each party shall serve written notice on The League and all other parties to the arbitration of the details of the individual they wish to appoint to act as an arbitrator in the arbitration requested.  Any nominee must be:
98.2.1    a solicitor of no less than 10 years’ admission or a barrister of no less than 10 years’ call; and
98.2.2    independent of the party appointing him and able to render an impartial decision.
98.3        Within 14 days of service of the Notice of Arbitration The League shall appoint (or shall ask the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (or such other body as appointed by the Board from time to time) if The League is a party) to appoint) the third arbitrator who shall be a legally qualified person who shall sit as chairperson.
98.4        If a party refuses or fails to appoint an arbitrator when it is obliged to do so in accordance with these Regulations the Board (or the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (or such other body as appointed by the Board from time to time) if The League is a party) shall make the appointment giving notice in writing to that effect to each party.
98.5        Members of a League Arbitration Panel shall be entitled to receive from The League a reasonable sum by way of fees and expenses, as determined by the Board from time to time.  Where a party seeks to appoint an individual whose costs exceed those determined by the Board, that party will be responsible for any additional fees and expenses in any event, and such excess amounts cannot be the subject of an order for costs under any circumstances.
98.6        Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 98.1, the parties shall be at liberty to appoint a single arbitrator (who must be qualified in accordance with Regulation 98.2.1) in which case written notice of such agreement shall be provided to The League.  This Section of these Regulations shall thereafter be interpreted on the basis that the League Arbitration Panel comprises a single arbitrator who shall undertake the duties of the chairperson.

I'm genuinely amazed that this is remotely controversial.  The EFL arbitration process *is* an instance of the official, legal arbitration process (see the repeated references to the Arbitration Act in the EFL rules).  The EFL rules are completely clear that it is the only tool available to solve disputes between clubs (of which this clearly is).  I 100% guarantee you that the process apparently being rushed through next week, is an official EFL LAP hearing, either to make some kind of quick ruling on the football creditor issue, or to run the entire cases through.  There's nothing else it can be.

Behold the investigative power of a journalist going to the companies house website and downloading the publicly filed statement of affairs, that’s been there for months.